That wouldn't be a good thing for veganism, since the post you made carries anarchist/libertarian and anti capitalist undertones, and I think @brimstoneSalad explained why this is, and not just to you.

If the circumstances make it such that you can't fuck a man in the ass, then just peckerslap him. Better to let him know who's in charge than to let him get the keys to the car.
-Lyndon Baines Johnson

That wouldn't be a good thing for veganism, since the post you made carries anarchist/libertarian and anti capitalist undertones, and I think @brimstoneSalad explained why this is, and not just to you.

It might be possible to write an article FOR anarchists as long as you're very clear about it in the beginning that you don't have to be an anarchist to be vegan, etc. and that the article argues that anarchists should be vegan, not that vegans should be anarchists. People can easily misunderstand this, and hopefully anarchist vegans could take something productive away from it and realize that veganism is the more important issue and should not suffer from advocating anarchism to people who "aren't ready" for it yet.

What do you mean by "political talk"? There is nothing like "Murder should be legal!" there. I've just alluded a few times to the obvious fact that passing new laws isn't always a solution, especially when it comes to animal rights.

I'm not sure anybody in the thread clicked the blog link, but the abortion comment seems to have thrown things off a bit.
I don't think it's controversial to say banning abortion causes more harm; that can be pretty well empirically supported because we have examples of both, and in the same countries. Just mentioning abortion being wrong seemed to have thrown a few people though.

Have you? The guy on the second page of the thread has apparently read some of it, and he thinks I was committing the straw-man fallacy.I started reading this. That was probably a bad idea. This post is awful.
This post is seven pages of single spaced text in one paragraph. You have pictures interspersed in the text that change the justification of the text every few lines, making it extremely visually distracting and difficult to read. I made it through about one page worth of text before I started getting a headache just from the formatting.
Here's the essence of the problem with your analysis. You're entire post consists of strawman arguments. You repeatedly start thoughts with this sort of structure: "Some people believe that eating meat is required for our health, but here's why they're wrong". You don't actually try to present these arguments in a sophisticated or charitable way; instead you just put up a statement without context, then proceeding to knock it down (and a lot of these, including this canard about people touting the health benefits of meat is a thing that I actually don't think a lot of people believe). You say you've done research, but you've obviously never done research on what the other side of the debate actually thinks or believes.
If I was doing that, that was rather unintentional. I think I discussed precisely what most of the meat-eaters actually believe, and I've even linked (on the right-side section of the web-page) to a video by a meat-eater arguing that it's moral to eat meat as an example.

If I was doing that, that was rather unintentional. I think I discussed precisely what most of the meat-eaters actually believe, and I've even linked (on the right-side section of the web-page) to a video by a meat-eater arguing that it's moral to eat meat as an example.

Yeah, I don't think there was anything like a straw man in your argument. If the arguments don't apply to somebody (like they eat meat due to genuine need of circumstance like a poor hunter gatherer tribe) then it's just not relevant to them. Such people probably aren't on internet forums, though.

They'd have to argue it's OK to cause animal suffering for jollies, or that producing animal products doesn't cause suffering, or that it's actually necessary.

Most people agree on point 1, that's a rare argument.
Some people are ignorant on point 2 but that's becoming a little less common. Most people are ignorant on point 3 and don't understand that they don't need it.

Then there are the occasional denials of cause and effect

1. Producing animal products is wrong
2. Causing something wrong to happen (even when not directly doing it yourself) is wrong
3. Purchasing a product causes production of that product (supply and demand)
Conclusion: Purchasing animal products is wrong.

A few people deny 2, but that doesn't go very far when you break down cause and effect and explain the implications of that. Denial of point 3 is pretty easy to refute by explaining basic economics.